GUEST BLOG: Ben Morgan – Kherson, does NATO overestimate the strength of Russia?
This week the predicted Ukrainian offensive near Kherson started. This column argues that Russia will be defeated near Kherson. The defeat’s speed and magnitude will hinge on NATO support, if the Ukrainians are provided with more weapons, ammunition and training the defeat will be quicker and more significant. Western commentators significantly influence public opinion and therefore policy development, they also tend to over-estimate Russian strength. This is likely to be because many commentators are retired NATO generals; whose formative training was during the Cold War and focussed on fighting the Soviets. As young officers they were taught not to underestimate their enemy and it seems that this training and sensible conservatism carries through into their second careers as media military experts. Assessments of Russian military strength and capability are important because they contribute to NATO’s policy discussion about supporting Ukraine. Now with the possibility of a large Ukrainian victory developing near Kherson it may be useful to reassess this reasoning.
The idea that the Russians are invincible, indefatigable boogeymen who are impossible to defeat or that Vladimir Putin is a master strategist needs to be challenged. This assessment contributes to NATO’s decisions and has clearly slowed down the flow or weapons and equipment to Ukraine. When the war started assessing Russian strength was difficult, their army had recently been modernised and the initial invasion appeared to demonstrate a high level of capability. Most commentators thought Ukraine would fall, some understood the battlefield impact of Javelin and NLAW and argued the Ukrainians would hold. The latter group were proven right.
Six months later with Ukraine on the offensive, the evidence provides a very different view of the ‘Russian Bear’. A large, and apparently well-planned Ukrainian campaign appears to be culminating near Kherson. The operation has been developing for months and shows every chance of being a major Russian defeat.
First, Ukraine committed to the defensive battle in the east; around Severodonetsk and Lysyschansk. This battle drew Russian forces away from the south ‘fixing’ the forces involved in attacking these cities in position. Through May and June, Ukraine maintained steady pressure on the south slowly pushing east towards Kherson and crossing the Inhulets River. Then in July and August after NATO long-range artillery began to arrive in Ukraine, a campaign of long-range precision attacks started on Russian lines of supply and command hubs. This campaign increased in intensity and we saw a visible decrease in Russian artillery fire across Ukraine. In August, Ukraine demonstrated a new capability, launching attacks far behind Russia’s frontlines. Deep strikes, like the Saki Airbase attack interdicted supply lines and contributed to another Ukrainian objective; driving the Russian Black Sea Fleet from the battle, thus securing Odessa from amphibious attack and the right flank of an advance on the coast.
The evidence strongly suggests that rather than teetering in the edge of defeat, the Ukrainians are carefully using their limited resources in a well-planned and coordinated manner, and in spite of the opinion of many commentators have been setting the tempo of the war for a long-time. Further, Russia’s inability to counter this operation demonstrates the inherent weakness of their military. The mistakes early in the campaign, like not achieving air supremacy or destroying Ukraine’s command and control capabilities are well-understood. We also have ample evidence for the failure of Russian equipment, their poor standard of training and lack of tactical logistics. Finally, the morale and motivation of Russian soldiers is demonstrably poor and not being mitigated by good leadership.
However, to understand Russia’s underlying weakness it is more important to examine Russia’s operational decisions in the war:
- Committing to the Mariupol Battle. Clearing out the Azovstal steel plant took time and resources that could not be replaced. Better tacticians would have surrounded the plant and left the Azov Battalion to starve. Fighting committed soldiers in an urban wasteland is very resource intensive and should only be considered if there is no other alternative. Instead, the Russians chose to lose good soldiers to achieve a propaganda goal.
- Committing to battle in Luhansk and Donetsk. The battle to capture Severodontesk and Lysyschansk was a clearly signalled entrapment. The Russians fought a long and costly offensive battle against the most effective and well-prepared soldiers in the Ukrainian army. This ‘fixed’ up to a third of their available forces in a tiny area allowing Ukraine to retake areas around Kharkov and to manoeuvre in the south. Worse, the concentration of force in this area was not supported by a large and powerful reserve, or in Soviet parlance a ‘second echelon’ able to push through as Ukraine withdrew allowing a transition to offensive operations.
- Committing to battle in Kherson. It is estimated that 20-25,000 soldiers have crossed the Dnipro River, jumping into Ukraine’s ‘cauldron’. Like the battles in Donetsk and Luhansk this is a good example of a poor tactical decision, made either because of arrogance or political directions trumping military considerations. The Ukrainians chose the area around Kherson early and for a variety of reasons including; the presence of uncommitted armoured forces defending Odessa and the geography of the region. The area is bisected by large rivers that provide opportunities to create strong defensive lines and to ‘cut off’ Russian forces.
Stepping back, taking a breath and subjectively analysing the Russian’s performance is important. At this stage they are not demonstrating that they have the ‘initiative’ and instead appear to be being operationally out manoeuvred by a smaller less well-equipped opponent. Also Russia’s forces are not demonstrating the ability to evolve quickly, tactically. It is interesting to compare the current Russian army with its Soviet ancestor that in both the Finnish Winter War and more recently in Afghanistan evolved very quickly after initial defeats. Essentially, it is wrong to assess the Russian’s current capability based on Soviet-era models as many commentators appear to be doing. Corruption, arrogance and the kleptocracy have created a vastly different and less effective war machine.
Right now, near Kherson, Ukraine has worked hard to set the conditions for a significant Russian defeat. A defeat that the Russians contributed to by over-extending themselves and allowing Ukraine to set the conditions for battle. Russia’s soldiers started the war poorly trained and un-motivated with second rate equipment. Six months later 20-25,000 of them are in Kherson Oblast, tired and facing a Ukrainian offensive with their backs against a wide river.
Ukraine is advancing on a wide front, reportedly on three axes. A coastal axis driving east from Mykolaiv, a second axis advancing south-east towards Kherson from about 30km north of the coastal thrust and a third axis driving roughly east towards Nova Kakhovka. Outside of Ukraine we don’t know which of these axes are the main effort, or even if one has been prioritised. We do know that Ukraine has well trained adaptable infantry that if they choose to will be able to take ‘the fight’ to the Russian defenders in Kherson. It is more likely though that the aim is to surround Kherson and force either a hasty withdrawal (which would be my advice to the Russians) or a surrender. The effect of which would have significant political impacts in Russia.
We know that Putin does not have unanimous political support for the war, demonstrated by not being able to mobilise or escalate the war by using weapons of mass destruction. The Russian’s propaganda response to the Ukrainian offensive is also telling, the Kremlin reaching out to Russian military bloggers to promote the idea that the offensive is failing. This information operation demonstrates a level of uncertainty. Putin’s biggest fear, must be film of thousands of Russian soldiers marching into captivity with their hands over their heads. In the modern world, there is no way to stop these images circulating and politically it would be very damaging for Putin.
Unfortunately, NATO’s current policy seems to be set based on a Soviet-era picture of Russian military power, that mitigates against escalation. Ukraine is demonstrating the ability to fight a large campaign and create the conditions for a significant victory. Perhaps, it is time for NATO policy makers to reassess their position regarding Russia’s military strength. It seems very likely that the Russian’s will be defeated in Kherson, with more NATO support that defeat will be quicker and more damaging. More NATO support delivered soon may even be damaging enough to remove Putin and bring the Russians to negotiating table or to create the conditions for liberation of Ukraine.
Ben Morgan is a tired Gen X interested in international politics. He is TDB’s Military analyst.
And I expect that the weak demoralised over extended Russians will be pushed back to Sebastopol next week Ben. Meanwhile I will keep reading the map, Odessa next stop for Ivan.
In this Chris Hedges Report, (linked below) independent left-wing reporters and former war correspondents, Chris Hedges and Patrick Lawrence express concern for the future of public trust in the media, when the truth finally comes out. The extent of propaganda and censorship seems to be reaching critical mass.
”Throughout the Ukraine war, Western news outlets have mindlessly parroted the opinions of a ruling elite and overseen a public discourse that is often unhinged from the real world. ”
https://youtu.be/N0H7PIJcEP0
Well Chis Hedges is wrong – and it’s just his opinion anyway.
In your opinion ?
Chris Hedges has a new show. Good catch. Cheers! His vast experience in journalism and war zone reporting is worth noting.
This week the predicted Ukrainian counteroffensive near Kherson started resulting in the loss of 1700 Ukrainian pieces of cannon fodder as well as vast amounts of equipment.
There, fixed it for Ya.
Meanwhile, back in reality, Zelensky is getting Ukrainians slaughtered for no advances.
Zelensky at least has the excuse of hating Ukranians. What’s yours, Ben?
Seems a sound analysis Ben. It seems a few pro Russian trolls have found this blog. Likely the same ones that predicted Ukraine’s collapse in less than a couple of weeks!
Yes Trev and these pro-Putin trolls are barely literate! Their grammar and spelling is appalling! I can barely understand some of them. If you want to get your point across, make sure your grammar is correct.
Seems a sound analysis Ben.
The line of contact between both forces has not moved in nearly five months now and it will remain static while Russia blasts Ukraine with Artillery. The latest failure has proved your critics correct with thousands of dead and hundreds of vehicles destroyed or captured for no real gain by the Ukrainian army.
Unless NATO intervenes with their Airforce things are likely to remain in a stalemate until the end of winter.
The North Koreans could beat Russia
https://tass.com/politics/1501881
MILITARY OPERATION IN UKRAINE3 SEP, 05:53
Ukrainian general estimates Kiev’s losses at hundreds of thousands since Feb
Sergey Krivonos predicts that the Ukrainians “will soon start asking the authorities why such colossal sacrifices were made”
KIEV, September 2. /TASS/. Ukraine’s losses sustained during Russia’s special military operation are estimated at hundreds of thousands, according to the former deputy commander of Ukraine’s Special Operations Forces, ex-deputy secretary of the National Security and Defense Council, General Sergey Krivonos.
“[We have] the right to say to the authorities: ‘Why haven’t you done anything? Why hundreds of thousands are dead? What did they die for? What have you done to save their lives? All speculations to the effect this is untimely are an attempt to blur the memory and to erase history. What can erase the blood of the dead, who already number hundreds of thousands? Who will be responsible for this?'” Krivonos said on the Ukrainian Media Network on the YouTube channel on Friday.
He predicts that the Ukrainians “will soon start asking the authorities why such colossal sacrifices were made.”
In early August, an adviser to the head of the Ukrainian presidential office Mikhail Podolyak, said that Ukraine was losing 30-50 soldiers a day, in contrast to the daily losses of 100-200 killed before. According to the chief of the parliamentary faction of the ruling Servant of the People party, David Arakhamia, the Ukrainian army was losing 200-500 a day.
On July 15, Ukrainian Defense Minister Alexey Reznikov said that the Ukrainian army’s losses had peaked in May, when it was losing up to 100 people killed and 300-400 wounded per day. At the same time, the Defense Ministry has stated that its losses in manpower were a state secret not to be disclosed during martial law.
TAGS
Military operation in Ukraine
https://tass.com/politics/1501881MILITARY OPERATION IN UKRAINE3 SEP, 05:53
Ukrainian general estimates Kiev’s losses at hundreds of thousands since Feb
Sergey Krivonos predicts that the Ukrainians “will soon start asking the authorities why such colossal sacrifices were made”
KIEV, September 2. /TASS/. Ukraine’s losses sustained during Russia’s special military operation are estimated at hundreds of thousands, according to the former deputy commander of Ukraine’s Special Operations Forces, ex-deputy secretary of the National Security and Defense Council, General Sergey Krivonos.
“[We have] the right to say to the authorities: ‘Why haven’t you done anything? Why hundreds of thousands are dead? What did they die for? What have you done to save their lives? All speculations to the effect this is untimely are an attempt to blur the memory and to erase history. What can erase the blood of the dead, who already number hundreds of thousands? Who will be responsible for this?'” Krivonos said on the Ukrainian Media Network on the YouTube channel on Friday.
He predicts that the Ukrainians “will soon start asking the authorities why such colossal sacrifices were made.”
In early August, an adviser to the head of the Ukrainian presidential office Mikhail Podolyak, said that Ukraine was losing 30-50 soldiers a day, in contrast to the daily losses of 100-200 killed before. According to the chief of the parliamentary faction of the ruling Servant of the People party, David Arakhamia, the Ukrainian army was losing 200-500 a day.
On July 15, Ukrainian Defense Minister Alexey Reznikov said that the Ukrainian army’s losses had peaked in May, when it was losing up to 100 people killed and 300-400 wounded per day. At the same time, the Defense Ministry has stated that its losses in manpower were a state secret not to be disclosed during martial law.
TAGS
Military operation in Ukraine
Sorry for multiple posting of same item. There was no indication post had gone through so I posted again.. and again..
But maybe some columnists and commenters here at TDB should read it multiple times and a neuron might activate in their brain.
It is a disgrace that Mikhail Gorbachev was not given a state funeral and Putin not attending the funeral. Of course Russia Today being Putin’s lapdog, is not covering the funeral. This is also a disgrace.
RT covered the funeral live, facts matter Cantabrian. Yet another low value comment from yourself. No surprise there. The more you post the less creditability. Keep calm and carry on by all means, It’s humorous.
finngrin I find you humorous most of the time ditto and RT was certainly not showing the funeral when I checked in! They weren’t covering the large numbers of mourners because it didn’t fit the Kremlin’s narrative.
What’s more Novaya Gazeta has just been banned. So much for press freedom in Russia.
So many Russian bots! This must mean that Putin is scared.
Meanwhile various Russian ‘businessmen’ have been killed or ‘suicided’. This is most likely Putin killing off those plotting to remove him. All while hundreds of thousands of Russians have driven over the Finnish border to escape the tyranny and conscription. We’re witnessing the death throes of a nation.
Read a good article which fits my observations of this war here ;
https://bigserge.substack.com/p/the-russo-ukrainian-war .
And another Jacques Baud interview here;
https://libya360.wordpress.com/2022/09/01/jacques-baud-operation-z/
Both very informative articles .
Superbly argued articles Ra. Ben and Cantab would do well to give a reasoned criticism based upon veritable information. As we blog Western based reports I’m reading about the Kherson battle indicate massive losses of Ukrainian troops and material for no gain. It appears NATO are prepared to fight to the last live Ukrainian.
Cheers, you are right, extremely informative writing
Big Serge might be more sophisticated than the usual Russian agitprop but he is still heavily biased in Russia’s favour and not balanced at all. His description of the failed Russian attack on Gostomel leaves one incredulous. He must be receiving substantial sums from the Kremlin.
“superbly argued”
https://dailysceptic.org/archive/how-accurate-is-jacques-bauds-analysis-of-the-war-in-ukraine/
It is not often that someone who once worked for a component of Western foreign policy, Jacques Baud, for NATO, in time, soon questions aspects of this policy. In such rare circumstances, it can be a breathe of fresh air. At the same time, it almost always draws criticism from the media tasked with covering said policy matters. This is the case with this Daily Skeptic piece. For those who actually spend time following/understanding (Western) foreign policy, I don’t need to say anymore in regards to the DS piece. Otherwise, the key to this piece is this – the absence of a call for peace! We can all take Mr Baud’s analysis any way we see fit, but one thing we cannot question, is that he laments the lose of life. Thus, anyone who does critique Mr Baud while at the same time is not calling for peace, is someone who does not hold life in high regard. Make of that, as you please.
I’d been reading some Marxist diatribes so this article made light relief, but really left us no wiser. Bauds accuracy and who he classifies as Nazis are valid questions until you examine closely, for example whatever the real numbers of extreme right wingers they are still significant. Ditto the shelling numbers, the number is for two days, not one. Still it’s a lot.
Baud gets it right that the Ukraine launched an offensive, I’d posit Biden and NATO people were well aware prior. Lot of he said she said here, on balance Baud is as credible as anybody in the fog of war, which means until the fog clears the jury is out.
Odesa, was where NATO expect to defeat Russia.
NATO is a weak and pathetic alliance who can’t even reign in Turkey and their offensive actions in Syria, so to say they overestimated the strength of Russia is total and utter bullshit, if that was the case, they wouldn’t be scrambling with sanctions that are destroying their own countries and sending in increasingly bigger and more expensive weapons.
No NATO was eager for a fight against Russia, but they wanted it to look like the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war where Azerbaijani, supported by Turkey invaded Armenia to what was global support for the effort, so much so the Armenia President left his men to die.
So while the global world cried about Russia, demanding Russia find a solution to the Ukrainian civil war for 8 years, they began drawing up plans to invade Crimea, they starting laying the ground work in the media claiming sovereignty integrity, illegal annexation. The Ukraine themselves didn’t expect the Russian invasion, they thought they had more time.
But they were prepared, as Russia rolled into Donetsk, well Russia didn’t obtain any sort of surprise, infact i think it was the Russians who were surprised and with a jerk of the knee ordered a general advance which was extremely costly. More so i think because Russian generals talk far to much to NATO ones, that well it was never going to be successful.
The killer blow for Russia would have happened in Odesa, infact i don’t think Kherson was on anyones mind, let alone Russia capturing as much as they have. And you think the Kherson offensive will be successful? Clearly you have not been watching the struggles of Russia in the East along the river. Sure Ukraine has a beach head, a beach head where their 3 pontoon bridges have been destroyed.
NATO under estimated Russia, no where in their tiny little heads did they consider Russia would lose 10s of thousands of men in such a sort period of time. Even today they think their long range artillery is making progress destroying bridges, ammo and men. Fact is you have the side of NATO more desperate now then ever before, throwing everything at Russia, even the kitchen sink and still making no progress.
Russia on the otherhand, no one has ever defeated Russia in the Winter.
Sadly, you can’t negotiate with a round table who has no clear leader.
What is Russia to do?
Ben will have fun next article. That is because Ukraine has launched a second offensive near Kharkov. It is too early to tell what is happening so let’s wait 48 hours to get reports. Around Kherson we know that the Ukrainians are suffering heavy casualties, but that is the nature of offensives. What can be said is that Ukrainian morale must be sufficient to actually attempt to attack, and that their material supplies and reserve numbers sufficient to do so.
If we accept, as Kiev has admitted that they have already suffered huge losses what can be made of this? We know that NATO and Zhelensky will fight till the last Ukrainian. Is this their Ardennes moment, the last gamble? Or is it another Somme where the meat grinder ramps up before settling back to routine, nothing gained? Unless Russia escalates my bet is on the latter.